Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

You can't laugh with someone if they never intended it to be humorous. At that point you can only be said to be laughing at them. Acknowledging that somethings may look dated years after they were produced or that science took shape in ways different than predicted doesn't automaticly justify a "laughable" label.

This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode were Jerry learns a friend described him as "being a phony." When confronted the friend tried to BS him that the term "phony" was slang for something more positive (like "bad" meaning "good"). Jerry didn't buy it then nor do I now.

"Laughable" when used to describe things not meant to be seen as funny transforms it into a term of derision. I believe that makes it a poor choice to use in polite conversation were respect is something strived for.

I accept that I may very possibly be in the minority on this, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

I disagree with you. That isn't the way it was intended. If that is the way you took it, that is the fault of your perceptions and not of my intentions. As far as I know there is no universal standard that assigns the term "laughable" with the meaning YOU have assigned it. "Laughable" is defined as something that causes laughter. Period. If it was intended to cause laughter, great. If it wasn't, great. It caused laughter. Not derision. Laughter is good. Derision is bad. You have decided I meant to be derisive. I didn't.

Design that sets out to predict what the future will look like and ends up being superseded is as laughable as anything that presents itself as one thing and looks like another. I tell my guests that I am going to serve them fish and I bring them a turkey and I might get a joke and a chuckle. Will it hurt my feelings? Only if I choose to think my guests are being derisive. Since you will never be my guest however, I will never have that to worry about.

The flip side of using flatscreen computer displays in Enterprise is that they were animated (and within budget, always the primary consideration) and due to good graphic design they appeared to be providing information to the crew. The major issue that's always existed with Star Trek - and this is particularly true of TOS - is that the equipment on the bridge is attractive but rarely appears to be doing anything useful.

Probably the most persuasive instruments on the TOS bridge were Spock's viewer and Sulu's targeting scope, simply because you couldn't judge the visual plausibility of whatever they were looking at.

A second way in which the Enterprise bridge is more persuasive is that the design employs the kind of basic ergonomics - heights, angles, size of panel layouts - that people have become familiar with in modern office environments and personal computers. The TOS is much more seat-of-the pants in that regard. Uhura occupies a station that's twice the size it ought to be and tilted up before her at an extreme angle that happens to look good on camera because that angle better shows off the backlit jelly-button "control panels."

The TOS bridge is my favorite Star Trek set, period, but that's not because of its plausibility so much as the esthetics and way the design "plays" - yeah, getting to and from Kirk's chair is ridiculous, but the eye lines and character movement from level to level are great.

Frank Lloyd Wright's designs were notoriously ignorant of ergonomics, and yet they still look more futuristic than much of what is built today, nearly a century after their design. Tell me what you think -- what looks more futuristic - the NX-01 bridge or Frank Lloyd Wright's designs for the interior of Klaatu's ship in "The Day the Earth Stood Still"? I know Wright's designs with their stand-up controls probably fail the ergonomics test. But their ambiguity and dissociation from what is familiar, yet vague connection with what we would expect from "controls" makes them look suitably futuristic to me. But I may be in the minority.

Well, I suppose there is a difference between "futuristic" as an esthetic and "plausible as a technologically advanced future." I think that Forbidden Planet looks more futuristic than the Nostromo in Alien, but it does not look as real...and both are dated.

... If that is the way you took it, that is the fault of your perceptions and not of my intentions.

Perhaps, however, I am applying the rules of common usuage and context whereas you appear to be trying to ignore such relevant considerations. You look to be attempting to claim the meaning of word is to be considered and interpreteted in a vaccum.

If it was intended to cause laughter, great. If it wasn't, great. It caused laughter. Not derision. Laughter is good. Derision is bad. You have decided I meant to be derisive. I didn't.

So laughter is never hurtful or meant to insult or injure? LOL! I'm sure many folks would disagree.

Design that sets out to predict what the future will look like ...

That is a seperate point for debate.

I would (and do) maintain they are not meant to be literal, direct predictions rather they are figurative representations. This is supported by the fact form usually supercedes consideration of function. It is usually desiged to reinforce the predetermined theme or unifying vision of the production.

In most cases they are the results of artists and designers rather then engineers or people with expert knowledge in a given area. The medical props in Trek, for example were designed by artists rather than engineers with expertise in the medical field (though consultation may have been invited).

I tell my guests that I am going to serve them fish and I bring them a turkey and I might get a joke and a chuckle.

And this example applies to what we are saying ... how? You tell folks to expect one thing and deliver something else is in no way what we are speaking to. Unless it is a non-sequitur on purpose then

Frank Lloyd Wright's designs were notoriously ignorant of ergonomics, and yet they still look more futuristic than much of what is built today, nearly a century after their design.

Frank Lloyd Wright may have been ignorant of the modern practical definitions and applications of the term "ergonomic," but the individual elements and principles which went into their formation and development were known to him. They didn't just spring up out of nowhere in 1949.

Well, I suppose there is a difference between "futuristic" as an esthetic and "plausible as a technologically advanced future." I think that Forbidden Planet looks more futuristic than the Nostromo in Alien, but it does not look as real...and both are dated.

I think the problem in this discussion is the ambiguity of the word "futuristic". After all, none of us knows for certain what the future will hold. I hew to an idea of "futuristic" that is informed by Clarke's statement that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". In other words, the design should appear to be incapable of doing the task it does. That can mean that it can look like something that does an everyday, common task, but just so happens to be able to do something much more. Or it can look as if it does nothing and does a lot. Or something in between. To me, vagueness of purpose gives the thing added shelf life because it will be less likely that the present will catch up with what it is shown doing. If we say a communicator operates on radio frequencies and is limited to a 15,000 mile range, we may be in great shape in 1966 but in trouble ten years later. So we don't say.

If a design fails to look ergonomic or otherwise functional by contemporary standards, the question is, is it plausible that in the future those standards will change or no longer matter? If that's the case, varying such a design feature could give something greater plausibility, not less.

Frank Lloyd Wright consciously ignored ergonomics in some of his designs in favor of the look of the thing. I understand that would be impractical in the case of a military command center unless, as I wrote above, the standards of what is considered ergonomic change. Certainly the standards my grandfather sitting at an oak desk and chair in 1920 would consider comfortable would be very different from those of me in a zero gravity chair and Ergotron tower workstation. And presumably mine will be different from my grandson eighty years hence.

I remember them saying they had to break down a wall in the studio to accomidate the TNG bridge which had to be larger because the ship was so much larger itself with over 1000 people instead of 400. Plus it slanted down, like Picard's head too. It was ridiculous like they kept changing their mind as to want they wanted and went with a mish mash of several different designs stuck together. GR was getting dimensional then I think. The predators were too much for him. they made him look like he was standing still and was an outdated dinosaur, almost to the point where seemed like Berman just told everyone to ignore him and worship the Golden calf like E.G. Marshell did in Moses. GR was no Charton Heston at that time. The fix was in. Even his memos were probably being ignored and laughed at like TOS was this goofy, corny, outdated thing compared to what they were doing, only none of them, including GR at the time knew what they were doing really.

Man, I love your posts.

__________________
Author of Live Like Louis! Inspirational Stories from the Life of Louis Armstrong, http://livelikelouis.com

I remember them saying they had to break down a wall in the studio to accomidate the TNG bridge which had to be larger because the ship was so much larger itself with over 1000 people instead of 400. Plus it slanted down, like Picard's head too. It was ridiculous like they kept changing their mind as to want they wanted and went with a mish mash of several different designs stuck together. GR was getting dimensional then I think. The predators were too much for him. they made him look like he was standing still and was an outdated dinosaur, almost to the point where seemed like Berman just told everyone to ignore him and worship the Golden calf like E.G. Marshell did in Moses. GR was no Charton Heston at that time. The fix was in. Even his memos were probably being ignored and laughed at like TOS was this goofy, corny, outdated thing compared to what they were doing, only none of them, including GR at the time knew what they were doing really.

Man, I love your posts.

I've read it six times today and I've taken something different away from it every time. In that sense, it is like watching BLADE RUNNER or TWELVE MONKEYS.

Spelling aside, I'm actually experiencing what could be called a dementianal shift while thinking about it. You don't think this could be JOKER's relative, do you? (I'm talking the character, not the poster ... or AM i?)

Of course, the one thing that really dates TOS in my eyes is the miniskirt (and no, that doesn't look any better in the Abramsverse either).

Which is why I wish that Abrams & Co. would drop the stupid miniskirts and let the women wear pants, as in the pilot 'The Cage'. In fact, several feminists have said that that's what should happen in Star Trek Into Darkness, and they said it in 2009-2010. Holding on to this part of Star Trek 'just because it's tradition' is bullshit; the modern military isn't like that for women generally (unless female personnel are in smart dress mode.)

I think that the bridge has dated, and the bridge seen in the Abramsverse is a lot better.

Because that's what most women in most real-world navies do. Nobody wears a short miniskirt on board a ship or at a shore posting in the real world, and they shouldn't be doing so in the 23rd century. Also, the ladies look better in pants.

Because that's what most women in most real-world navies do. Nobody wears a short miniskirt on board a ship or at a shore posting in the real world, and they shouldn't be doing so in the 23rd century. Also, the ladies look better in pants.

"This isn't reality, this is fantasy." - Uhura, Star Trek III

I'm not inclined to make a judgement call on how the 23rd century military operates since I've never seen it in action. And since I'm already buying into the concepts of FTL travel, machines that take us apart and then put us back together again thousands of miles away and cross-species offspring, it's not hard for me to accept mini-skirts into the Star Trek universe.

If one wishes to make something look "futuristic", why would one endeavor to make it look "contemporary"?

I think mini skirts are fine onboard ship for certain personnel not involved in activities for which the mini skirt isn't suited. On landing party duty, I think the women should have always worn pants, because presumably they would be more protective. Though I guess it is arguable that 23rd century stockings are as warm and indestructible as the pants.

Above, I think Xortex means "delusional," though the malapropism (if it is one) adds layers of nuance. Read him fast and it all makes sense. Though, like any rich text there are layers of meaning and irony, I kid you not.

__________________
Author of Live Like Louis! Inspirational Stories from the Life of Louis Armstrong, http://livelikelouis.com